Exsqueeze me, but if I had to choose between an '08 3-series BMW and a 4th gen Crapmaro, I think I could bite the bullet and live with those awful Mac struts. Anyone car to bankroll me?YOU decide....I already have.
The strut rod creates a hug binding problem in the front suspension. Unless you spend 400 bucks for the jointed type.Hello again.
Is there anyone in this forum who can comment about the strut rod questions I had typed earlier?
This CPP kit eliminates the strut rods? What are the advantages and dis-advantages to this?
Help?
And thanks
And if you do you'll have a noticeably harsher ride. This is what I see as the paradox of the strut rod -- it's not the best way to create a stable lower control arm, but it also takes the edge off the ride. The bushings both resist smooth suspension movement and introduce inconsistency into the movement, neither of which are great things. However, those same bushings also provide nice ride quality. A suspension system such as the TCP kit, with solid upper and lower control arm mounts and solid strut rod mounts, moves through its range of motion very smoothly with no binding, but you feel every cigarette butt you drive over on the road.The strut rod creates a hug binding problem in the front suspension. Unless you spend 400 bucks for the jointed type.
Well, both can be true! There are different things that contribute to ride quality. Freeing up all of the pivots and "rollerizing" everything will allow the suspension to respond instantly to bumps in the road, so less energy is transmitted through to the car, hence a better ride in one respect. However, the high-frequency small stuff has nothing to damp it out so vibration is transmitted right through to the chassis and on to your fillings.Really ?! I would have guessed the complete opposite. I made a set of roler perches and noticed the ride difference and was way impressed (thanx Jon). I'da thought by freeing up another, would have more of the same...something to think about the.
Well, both can be true! There are different things that contribute to ride quality. Freeing up all of the pivots and "rollerizing" everything will allow the suspension to respond instantly to bumps in the road, so less energy is transmitted through to the car, hence a better ride in one respect. However, the high-frequency small stuff has nothing to damp it out so vibration is transmitted right through to the chassis and on to your fillings.
Even that is a gross oversimplification. Automakers have whole departments devoted to NVH (Noise, Vibration, and Harshness) engineering.
First post to thread: 4:19 p.m. PDT. First Chevy-rules-Stangs-suck post: 5:03. Now that didn't take long.
And you know these other guys were cornering on public roads at 10/10ths how? What I'm saying is that an impromptu dice on public roads between drivers of unknown skills, intent, and risk aversion is not a good test of the capabilities of any particular suspension system. Bench racing is fun, but wouldn't it make more sense to ask how do the RRS systems or other strut systems perform in competition, in comparison to a Global West or TCP system? Does anyone have that kind of knowledge?
Edit: Poking around the http://www.classicperform.com website I found that CPP's "Mini Subframe" kit is available for the '62-'67 Nova. Here are some Nova install stories:
http://www.classicperform.com/tech_articles/CPP_Subframe_Install/CPP_Subframe_Install.htm
http://www.classicperform.com/tech_articles/ChevyIISubFrame/ChevyIISubFrameVer3.htm
Although CPP (curiously) does not include this Nova kit, or aMustang kit, anywhere in its on-line retail pages, this vendor, National Nostalgic Nova http://www.nnnova.com/ , has the kit on its web site, in three versions.
Standard, $484 -- http://nnnova.com/product_info.php?products_id=2512 --
Extreme, $774 -- http://nnnova.com/product_info.php?products_id=2514 --
and Deluxe, $1014 -- http://nnnova.com/product_info.php?products_id=2513 --
As you can see from these pix, the '62-'67 Nova front suspension is substantially identical to the classic Mustang.
These kit prices compare very favorably to similar products from Global West, TCP, Ron Morris, etc., let alone the Heidt's and Rod & Custom Mustang II stuff and the RRS Mac strut stuff.
I'd say that when they are loosing the front end in the corner that they MIGHT be very close to the limits of either the car or their ability. Either way my 95 Z/28 was pulling them or closing down on them.
And I never said the late model Mustang sucked...I said a Z/28 from 93-2002 was better in the corners. And to support my belief that the 'Z' had a better suspension..
someone here PLEASE tell me why Ford went to the same rear suspension design on the new Mustang that Chevy started using on the 'Z' in 1982?? PLEASE, tell me Ford started using the 3-link with a torque arm because it was not as good as the triangulated 4-link that required a quad-shock to work. PLEASE..someone here tell me that.
And not as a joke. I'm waiting.
what torque arm? the 05-up Stang doesn't have a torque arm, it's a 3 link with a panhard bar. again your misinformation only shows your own ignorance to the subject at hand
http://www.theabneys.com/mikestoys/images/2005_mustang/Suspension/DSC00235.JPG
OK, I concede that everything you say is accurate and every conclusion you've ever drawn about suspension is correct. There -- is that what you were looking for? Will you go away now?I'd say that when they are loosing the front end in the corner that they MIGHT be very close to the limits of either the car or their ability. Either way my 95 Z/28 was pulling them or closing down on them.
And I never said the late model Mustang sucked...I said a Z/28 from 93-2002 was better in the corners. And to support my belief that the 'Z' had a better suspension..
someone here PLEASE tell me why Ford went to the same rear suspension design on the new Mustang that Chevy started using on the 'Z' in 1982?? PLEASE, tell me Ford started using the 3-link with a torque arm because it was not as good as the triangulated 4-link that required a quad-shock to work. PLEASE..someone here tell me that.
And not as a joke. I'm waiting.
Oh! so it doesn't have a torque arm? I read somewhere that it did. You know what that means? Do you? It means that the NEW Mustang rear suspension still is not as good as the 1982 Camaro rear suspension. Isn't that saying a lot for Ford. 20 + years after the Camaro introduced the 3-link/torque arm rear suspension and Ford still left off a MAJOR component. Makes me want to NOT buy one.
And the trianglulated-4 link, both with and without a Panhard bar was a GM idea back in the late 40's and early 50's. As was timed, mechanical fuel injection in an American car.. the 57 Vette and electronic fuel injection in the 59 Star-Chief. And the first production turbo-charged car in the Olds f-85, and the first all aluminum v-8 in an American production car with the Olds around 1962...which became the engine of choice for Land-Rover for 40+ years. Don't forget the first twin-cam, 4-valve, electronic fuel injection engine in an American production car with the Cosworth-Vega in 1976. How about the first American normally asperated engine to produce 1 hp per cubic inch in 1957? But my ignorance of the subject preceeds me.
I stand corrected.
My apologies to the kiddies.
i just noticed today while flipping through the M&F magazine.. apparently Ron Morris has a coil over kit that can be used with the stock style arms. Might compliment that CPP front end nicely... or open tracker's stuf. i think it comes with the two coil overs and it replaces the spring perch.
http://www.ronmorrisperformance.com...mp&Product_Code=5160&Category_Code=Susp_Parts
And if you do you'll have a noticeably harsher ride. This is what I see as the paradox of the strut rod -- it's not the best way to create a stable lower control arm, but it also takes the edge off the ride. The bushings both resist smooth suspension movement and introduce inconsistency into the movement, neither of which are great things.
The SBC was almost the SBF, Ford wouldn't buy the design, so they went to Chevrolet, read that somewhere..... maybe in a book by a guy with the last name of Yunick. Last I looked, the SBC looks a lot like a SBF.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?